Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely.
This publishes Sunday through Thursday with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).

Search This Blog

Loading...

20.9.12

Tantrums don't change facts of need for closing, reform

Feel better now, after the three-hour tantrum about the closing of the
Southeast State Hospital? Feel better now, after the six-month tantrum about
education reform? I hope so, because neither changes the fact of the rectitude
both of the closure and reform.

If modern liberalism were in charge in most respects of public
policy-making in Louisiana, these actions of a meeting to protest the closure
and of a recall petition directed at Gov. Bobby
Jindal would resonate perfectly with that ideology’s dependence upon
emotion and assertion of feelings to formulate policy, with inconvenient facts
shoved aside in a blizzard of illogic. But it isn’t, and the facts
remain.

Louisiana as a state, both in terms of public and private mental health
beds per capita, is in the top
quarter of states, and plenty of beds exist in the Regions 1 and 9 that had been
served by the hospital. Some family members will have to travel longer
distances to visit patients, but it’s not the state’s job to give them curb
service, only to do the best it can (often for free) to treat the afflicted.
Many families and patients also have the option of private and non-profit
providers in the area.

Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein hit the
nail on the head when he said, “too many of our resources are invested in large
public institutions. That is not the best model of care for our residents and
it's not in the best interest of taxpayers. Rather, the Department will build
partnerships with community providers and target improved models of care
focused on smaller residential settings, de-emphasizing the role of large
public institutions and making more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.” Compare
this attitude to people on the state payroll both elected and not, bawling about
the loss of jobs at the hospital, where they could use reminding that it is
policy of the state to get treatment to individuals who need it regardless of
the origin of the provider, not that the state provide direct employment.

Job reductions also, as well as a demand for better service, lay at the
heart of the recall effort against Jindal. The reforms stress outcomes that
promise to eject teachers who insufficiently know their subjects and/or don’t
convey the knowledge well out of the system who heretofore have burrowed into
it. These also challenge teachers to increase utilization of their own
abilities, as to demand more of students always demands more of the teacher. Some
too comfortable and complicit in the old underperforming system, wont to argue
whatever ails elementary and secondary education is so out of their hands that
only large infusions of money will solve for it, decided the best way to hang
onto power and privilege was to initiate a recall against Jindal, and then
added a few state legislators for good measure.

With the movement illegally
shrouded in secrecy, from what we can tell the deadline
at least for the Jindal petition was yesterday. That the state’s media did not
have filed a story today on the quest indicates that educator-organizers fell
short – probably miserably so – of the several hundred thousand signatures needed
to launch an election. As of this morning, the website, which had all of the recall
efforts attached to it, returned only an “under construction” advisory. Thus
with a whimper goes away all of the self-righteous
bluster of a small handful of individuals profoundly out of step and out of
touch with the people and their children’s needs.

At
least a few of those protesting the hospital shuttering are working on the
notion that Greenstein suggested by exploring partnerships with non-government
providers to keep at least part of the facility open – which of course begs the
question why this wasn’t done beforehand, if service provision most efficient
for the taxpayer was utmost in their minds. Maybe the recall organizers now
will emulate and decide to renounce being part of the problem and become part
of the solution.

About Me

Subscribe To

Comment publishing requirements

You must be a registered user with an OpenID-compliant service to leave comments, which will be moderated. Any comments that do not address issues in the post for which they are intended will not be posted; neither will those that utterly lack intellectual coherence.